[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
Punjab-Haryana High Court
Abhishek Sharma vs State Of Haryana on 23 January, 2026
CRM-M-71368-2025 (O&M) and one connected petition -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
1. CRM-M-71368-2025 (O&M)
Parmod Kumar ... Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana ... Respondent
2. CRM-M-68352-2025 (O&M)
Abhishek Sharma ... Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana ... Respondent
1. The date when the judgment is reserved 20.01.2026
2. The date when the judgment is pronounced 23.01.2026
3. The date when the judgment is uploaded on the 23.01.2026
website
4. Whether only operative part of the judgment is Full
pronounced or whether the full judgment is
pronounced
5. The delay, if any, of the pronouncement of full Not applicable
judgment, and reasons thereof
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA
Present: Mr. Mayank Yadav, Advocate,
for the petitioners.
Ms. Himani Arora, DAG, Haryana.
***
MANISHA BATRA, J.
1. This common order shall dispose of above mentioned two
petitions as they arise out the same FIR and seek similar relief.
2. By way of the present petitions filed under Section 483 of
1 of 6
CRM-M-71368-2025 (O&M) and one connected petition -2-
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, the petitioners, namely Parmod
Kumar and Abhishek Sharma, are seeking grant of regular bail to them in
case arising out of FIR No.20 dated 27.09.2024, registered under Section
318(4) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short 'BNS') [Sections 61(b)
and 238 of BNS added later on] at Cyber Police Station, Narnaul, District
Mahendergarh
3. The aforementioned FIR was registered on the basis of a
written complaint submitted by complainant Sunil Kumar alleging therein
that he had been induced to part with a sum of Rs.1,18,47,353/- by way of
cyber crime committed by the petitioners and the co-accused by alluring
the complainant on the premise to invest money and to fetch profits. The
money belonging to the complainant was shown to be transferred in the
bank account operated by the co-accused Vinod Piplodiya and Sanjay
Kumawat @ Sanju. The trail of the crime also led to the present petitioners
who along with the co-accued Mukesh Nath and Kailash were apprehended
on 28.12.2024 when all of them were indulged in committing online fraud
by using cell phones and laptops in some premises. Recoveries of several
mobile phones, ATM cards, cheque books, passbooks and sim cards etc.
were effected from them. The investigation now stands completed and the
petitioners along with the co-accused are facing trial for commission of
aforementioned offences.
4. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioners that they are
in custody for a period of over one year. There has been no progress in the
trial. The prolonged period of their incarceration is a sufficient reason for
seeking benefit of bail by them. They are not required for further
2 of 6
CRM-M-71368-2025 (O&M) and one connected petition -3-
investigation. Their continued detention would not serve any fruitful
purpose. The subject offences are triable by Magistrate. They have clean
antecedents. Similarly situated co-accused Aman Dela has already been
granted concession of regular bail by this Court. On parity, the petitioners
too deserve to be given the same benefit. These facts amount to substantial
change in circumstance, which entitle petitioner Abhishek Sharma to file a
second petition seeking grant of bail. It is, therefore, argued that they
deserve to be extended benefit of bail and the petitions deserve to be
allowed.
5. Separate status reports have been filed by the respondent-
State. In terms of the same, learned State counsel has argued that the
petitioners are not entitled to get benefit of bail as there are serious
allegations against them. They along with the co-accused were involved in
committing cyber-crime by duping innocent persons of their money. The
petition moved by petitioner Abhishek Sharma is not even maintainable as
the prayer made by him for grant of bail has already been declined by this
Court by passing a detailed order. There has been no substantive change in
the circumstances since then. It is, therefore, urged that the petitions do not
deserve to be allowed.
6. This Court has heard the rival submissions.
7. It is well settled proposition of law that while considering an
application for grant of bail, the Court has to take into consideration the
factors as to whether there is a prima facie case or reasonable ground to
believe that the accused has committed the offence, circumstances that are
peculiar to the case, likelihood of the offence being repeated, severity of
3 of 6
CRM-M-71368-2025 (O&M) and one connected petition -4-
punishment in the event of conviction and reasonable apprehension of the
witnesses being threatened etc. At the same time, the period of
incarceration is a relevant factor to be considered. So far as the
maintainability of the petition, being second petition moved by petitioner
Abhishek Sharma for grant of bail, is concerned, it may be mentioned that,
an accused has a right to move successive bail application for grant of bail
and it is the duty of the Court, while entertaining such a subsequent bail
application, to consider that any fresh ground which persuade it to take a
view different from the one taken in the earlier application is made out or
not. It is also required to be noted that every day spent by an accused in
custody provides a new cause of action for filing a bail application under
certain circumstances. This principle is a part of the broader approach
emphasizing that law prefers bail over jail, aiming to balance the right of
the accused with the requirements of the criminal justice system. Prolonged
detention itself is a ground for reconsideration of bail since settled
proposition of law is that detention prior to trial should not become
punitive. In the instant case, the petitioners are in custody for a period of
more than one year. The trial would obviously take considerable time to
conclude since no prosecution witness has been examined so far. The
petitioners do not have criminal antecedents. The part attributed to them in
the crime is that they had been working as employees of co-accused Nitesh,
Hitesh and Om Parkash on salary basis for transferring of money received
by committing cyber frauds. Though their complicity in the crime is prima
facie established from the allegations as levelled against them, however,
they cannot be kept in custody for an indefinite period due to that reason.
4 of 6
CRM-M-71368-2025 (O&M) and one connected petition -5-
Moreso, similarly situated co-accused Aman Dela has already been granted
concession of bail by this Court as mentioned above. It is well settled that
pre-trial incarceration should not be a replica of post conviction sentencing.
Taking into consideration the above discussed facts but without meaning
to make any comment on the merits of the case lest the same prejudice the
trial, the petitions are allowed and the petitioners are ordered to be admitted
to bail subject to their furnishing personal bonds as well as surety bonds
by two sureties to the satisfaction of learned trial Court/CJM/Duty
Magistrate concerned. Their release on bail shall further be subject to
following conditions:
(i) They shall mark their presence before the
SHO of the police station concerned at 11:00
AM on first Monday of every third month till
conclusion of trial;
(ii) They shall appear before the trial Court on
each and every date fixed, unless their presence
is exempted by specific order of the Court.
(iii) They shall disclose their present as well as
permanent address(es) before the learned trial
Court at the time of furnishing of bonds and shall
also give copy of their Aadhar Cards, PAN
Cards, if any, and details of their mobile phone
number(s) to the learned trial Court and in case,
any change in their address or mobile phone
number takes place, then they shall inform about
the same to the learned trial Court in advance.
(iv) They shall deposit their passport if any,
with the learned trial Court.
8. In case of violation of any of the above conditions, the
jurisdictional Court shall be empowered to consider the application for
5 of 6
CRM-M-71368-2025 (O&M) and one connected petition -6-
cancellation, if any, and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law.
9. Let a photocopy of this order be placed on the file of the
connected case.
(MANISHA BATRA)
23.01.2026 JUDGE
Waseem Ansari
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No
6 of 6
